....fell by a record $53billion in December, with China reducing it's holdings by $34billion. I seem to remember someone here saying in another thread that demand for short term US debt would be on the rise due to troubles in the Eurozone. This was used to justify the large deficits runs by the feds. What happens if this trend continues?

I'm not specualting this downward trend will continue. Although, if it does, I think it's safe to say we will have some big problems on our hands.

Isn't it time we realize we cannot spend our way out of recession? Isn't it time we get our federal budget under control by reducing the size of the federal government, like now?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Foreign-de...set=&ccode=

It is indeed time we got our budget under control, but I see little sign we will. Obama spends even worse than Bush did and the Rs wont even join a commission to look into ways to reduce the deficit. It seems to me that the president is complelty fiscally irresponsible and the Rs who were only a bit better when in power would rather see Obama fail than to see our nation suceed.

I can see why Bahy , who was a shoe in for reelection, said to hell with this mess.

Everyone complains about the budget deficit but no one has the stones to stand up and say "we're fighting two Vietnams in Asia Minor that we couldn't even really afford to start at the time, and they've been on-going cash-sinks for nearly a decade. They need to stop now, before they break us financially. If they haven't already"

You got it Dave. I am under the firm belief that the D's and R's are on the same team when it comes to this mess and it's sure as $hit not our team. All their manufactured differences are nothing more than fodder for TV, slurped up by those desparate for association.

If you can look between all the wedge issues and see your rep for what he/she really is all you have to do is ask yourself the following questions. Does my rep vote to expand or contract the size and scope of the federal government? Do they vote for transparency within the system or to continue the secrecy?

Pretty simple really. Whether they be a D or R or L or GP or TP or SP,....whatever. If they can stick to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution then they've got my vote.

Completely agree with you Irie. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that they never should have been started in the first place. Iraq for obvious reasons. Afghans didn't attack us on 9/11,......19 dudes from Saudi Arabia did. The attacks were also planned in Germany and Florida,.......did we drop bombs and open up decade long campaigns in those places too?

I'm relatively new here on "the Dark Side" so none of you have heard me say this before but,......You can't honestly look at the federal budget without also looking at foreign policy. You cannot overlook 700+ bases in 128 countries worldwide, a $1 trillion annual budget, and speak of fiscal conservatism at the same time. It doesn't work. We tried to have "Guns and Butter" in the 60's and ended up with a mess in the 70's. We are a Welfare/Warfare state, that's how both sides are typically pleased. If we stay on the current course,....we won't be able to afford either.